This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Brampton capital-projects review frees up $80M in unspent cash

Unfunded infrastructure projects spiked to $755M after council was left in the dark in 2008; report recommends going back to detailed reporting.

Brampton Councillor John Sprovieri's dogged determination to get a street-widening project going in his ward helped lead to a review of $755 million worth of projects that were languishing. City staff have since recommended returning to regular detailed financial reporting on capital projects to city councillors, which had been discontinued in 2008. (CHRIS SO / TORONTO STAR) | Order this photo

City of Brampton staff say $755 million worth of “approved, but unspent” funds for projects proved hard to keep track of after city council’s direct oversight was removed in 2008.

Councillors were shocked last month when a staff report revealed that $766 million (since revised to $755 million) worth of projects approved and budgeted for over the past seven years have never been completed or in many cases even started.

In 2008, under Mayor Susan Fennell and then new city manager Deborah Dubenofsky (whose contract was not renewed in 2012), the practice of regular financial reporting to council on the capital program was discontinued, for reasons that are unclear. A report released Friday recommends that staff “reinstate detailed capital program financial reporting to Council on a semi-annual basis” and create a new staff position to help with “coordination of capital program management and delivery.”

“Was council informed when the oversight was removed?” Councillor John Sprovieri wanted to know after Friday’s report was released. “We want more details about why this procedure changed. That’s what I’m going to be asking,” he said, referring to Wednesday’s council meeting.

The new report reveals that at least $80 million in taxes and development charges collected for 173 approved projects (out of 663 reviewed) isn’t even needed any more and could have funded a long list of other desperately needed infrastructure.

Article Continued Below

“That money has just been sitting idle,” Sprovieri said. “Who knows if it would have ever been found?”

The recent review of the projects backlog might not have taken place had Sprovieri not voiced his growing anger over a chronically delayed street-widening project in his ward that staff originally kept off the 2014 project list, even though it had been mandated by a council resolution. Sprovieri got it back on the list, and staff agreed to do a review of all outstanding capital projects.

Others were never started, and many were delayed for various reasons, for example environmental issues.

Councillor Gael Miles, who was budget chair throughout the seven-year-period of the troubled capital projects (she resigned as chair in December) has vigorously defended the procedures then in place. She is one of the few councillors who has not voiced anger about the backlog or money standing idle.

“I have read (Friday’s report) over several times and nowhere do I read that oversight mechanisms were removed,” Miles said in an email Monday.

The report says that from 2000 to 2007, “detailed financial reporting on the capital program was provided to Council up to three times per year (including detailed listings of all projects, projects more than three years old, analysis of unspent funds, cash flow projections and projects with excess financing) …With the increased emphasis on project management and delivery, detailed financial reporting on the capital program was curtailed.”

According to the report, the sum of money approved for projects that weren’t being delivered ballooned. Between 2003 and 2007, unspent funds rose from $235 million to $342 million. By 2013, the amount had jumped to $755 million.

Councillor Elaine Moore remains puzzled by the report’s explanation for removing the oversight. “So, oversight in the form of detailed financial reporting to council was dropped, and now the new report recommends ‘reinstating it.’ It was supposedly dropped for better ‘project management,’ but really we ended up with neither,” she said.

“The problem with removing the oversight was that councillors were left asking questions about delayed projects in our wards, but we never got answers. At least our current staff realizes that oversight is badly needed.”

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com